Category: Personal Injuries

A man has received compensation after defamatory comments appeared on another man’s Facebook page, causing him to be suspended from his job.

In December 2015, John Gilsenan from Castleblayney in County Monaghan posted defamatory comments about Desmond Crofton –the National Director of the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC) – on his Facebook page, suggesting that the actions of the National Director had caused the NARGC to “go broke”.

The defamatory comments on Gilsenan’s Facebook page were seen by other NARGC members, who raised questions and concerns about the leadership of the National Director, the organisation´s finances and its legal costs. The aftermath of the Facebook post resulted in an unnecessary confrontation, with the outcome that Crofton was suspended from his position of National Director on full pay.

After seeking legal counsel, Crofton – from Stonestown in County Offaly – made a claim for compensation for defamation on Facebook against John Gilsenan. According to Crofton´s solicitor, Gilsenan had engaged in communication with his client soon after the claim was made, but had since “abandoned the matter”.

With the claim for compensation for defamation on Facebook remaining uncontested, the case went to the Monaghan Circuit Criminal Court, where it was heard by Judge John O´Hagan for the assessment of damages only. After hearing of the personal injury Crofton had suffered because of the defamatory comments, Judge O´Hagan awarded him €75,000 compensation for defamation on Facebook.

In his summing up, Judge O´Hara said he was awarding Crofton the maximum award of compensation for defamation on Facebook to “teach people posting messages on the social media site to be very careful”.

Rotherham Magistrates have issued a fine of £15,000 for health and safety violations to a recycling plant after one of its workers was involved in a serious accident with one of its pieces of machinery, sustaining serious damage to his arm.

In December 2013, Ryan Jackson (25) from South Yorkshire was working alone in the metal recycling plant. Ryan had only been recently employed by the plant when the machine he was working on stopped suddenly. Ryan investigated the cause of this, and found that there was something blocking the machinery. He attempted to remove the cause this blockage, not realising that the machine would start to function immediately after it was cleared.

As a result of this oversight, Ryan’s arm was caught by the cutting mechanism, and he suffered severe injuries to the area including a cracked shoulder blade, a shredded radial nerve and three different breakages to his arm. He was immediately escorted to hospital where his injuries were treated.

Ryan had to have a nerve removed from his calf and implanted into his shoulder to replace the one that had been destroyed by the machine. He was unable to use his broken arm for several months after the accident occurred. Ryan is still on a course of pain medication to help him with the pain he endures from the accident.

An investigation was launched, and it was revealed there had been a failure to replace a guard that had been placed over the tail drum after it was removed. The absence of emergency stop button near the area of the machine that had been blocked was also noted. The report concluded that the guarding that had been around the conveyor belt leading into the cutting mechanism was inadequate. Therefore, the area in which Ryan was working was not compliant with health and safety standards.

The Health and Safety Executive charged the owners of the recycling plant for breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Magistrates at Rotherham Magistrates Court were informed that the plant had no management system to ensure that the guards were in place, nor to check if suitable safety procedures were being followed. The lack of management system also meant that emergency equipment such as emergency stops or pull cords were not checked for functionality.

It brought to the attention of the magistrates that C F Booth Ltd, the owners of the plant, had been previously advised by the Health and Safety Executive in May 2013 regarding the guards of the end drums on other conveyor belts of the site.

The owners of the plant admitted that they had violated safety procedure. Such a breach was the cause of Ryan’s accident and resulting injuries. In addition to the £15,000 fine, they were required to pay costs of £1,595.

Figures released by the State Claims Agency indicated that, in the past five years, medical negligence claims against the HSE have nearly doubled.

The State Claims Agency have recently reported that last year, just under a thousand service medical negligence claims had been made against the HSE in the High Court. This figure is nearly double that reported in 2010. On top of these numbers, the State Claims Agency has to deal with more than 3,000 previous claims dating back from before 2014, and another 218 claims that have already been lodged this year.

However, these 936 health service medical negligence claims fails to include claims made in both the District and Circuit Courts. It also does not address public liability claims for accidents to visitors to hospitals, nor employer liability claims when employees are involved in accidents in Irish hospitals.

The number of claims is expected to rise even further following the Hiqa report into failings at the Portlaoise Hospital, and several high-profile cases involving Irish maternity care. The report caused the chief of the HSE-Tony O’ Brien- to call for a “clear-out of uncompassionate staff”. However, Leo Varadkar, current Health Minister, states that the “wall of silence” is responsible for the huge increase in the number of claims.

Leo Varadkar has previously criticised an “open disclosure” initiative in the HSE and State Claims Agency, first implemented in 2013. According to Varadkar, the initiative was failing to work, as hospital managers were neglecting to fully engage with patients who claimed to have had negative experiences while at hospital. In order to receive answers to their queries about what went wrong with their procedures, they are forced to go to court, due to this lack of engagement.

“When something goes wrong, it’s OK to say that you’re sorry about what happened”, Minister Varadkar said to the press. “It does not mean you’re accepting liability. There is a never a good reason to conceal the truth from a patient or their family once the facts are known. Aside from making sense from a human point of view, it’s the right thing to do financially”

The Department of Health is currently writing legislation to reinforce the open disclosure policy among Irish hospitals. This is hoped to help healthcare professionals engage with their patients, passing on vital information to them, without prejudicing future health service medical negligence claims.

The Injuries Board has recently released figures in its annual review indicating that the number of claims it received in 2014 remained roughly steady.

During the year, 31,576 claims for compensation were made to the Injuries Board, resulting in 12,420 (39%) assessments being accepted. The total value of awards granted was €281.2 million. In comparison to the previous year, 31,211 claims were made, of which 10,656 (34%) were accepted. In 2013, €243.5 million was granted in total as injury compensation.

In 2014, the higher acceptance rate was due to a large number of claims for compensation being put forward to the Injuries Board in the final few weeks of 2013 which were not resolved until 2014. The organisation’s report also stated that there had been a decrease in the amount of time needed to process and resolve a claim between the two years.

Despite the increase in the average value of a claim for an injury at work (rising from €28,886 to €32,134), there was a slight decrease overall in the average assessment of an injury claim (€22,642 from €22,847). The report also showed that the largest single assessment was for an employer liability claim, at a value of €972,898.

The Chief Executive of the Injuries Board-Patricia Byron-commented on the company’s annual report, stating: “While the volume of new claims stabilised last year, the increase in the number of awards made by the Board is a clear indication that more respondents, typically insurers, are opting to engage with our low cost claims resolution service and recognise the real value of avoiding unnecessary and costly litigation where uncontested claims are concerned”.”

Ms Byron continued: “2014 was an important year for us as we marked a decade in operation. As a result of our journey, personal injury compensation is now delivered in 7 months and at a processing cost of 6.7%, compared to almost 3 years and a cost of 58% for litigated claims. With over €1 billion in savings delivered to date and a ten year track record behind us, the benefits of non-adversarial claims resolution are unequivocal.”

Asbestos have been found to be the cause of the death of a sixty-five year old man, after he was exposed to the cancer-causing material as a teenager.

In September 2013, Charlie Glass (65 at the time) died at St Vincent’s Hospital in Dublin of mesothelioma cancer. He had been diagnosed with the disease in 2009, after receiving a CT scan. Charlie had fallen at work and injured his ribs, attending a VHI Swiftcare Clinic for treatment. X-rays were taken, which revealed more fluid on his lungs than what would have been expected. The fluid was drained, and the CT scan was taken-detecting the cancer.

Charlie required radical intervention, and was flown to London to receive chemotherapy and undergo surgery. After treatment, he returned home to Ireland and had several years of good health before the cancer eventually returned.

While being consulted on his cancer, Charlie was made aware of a link between exposure to asbestos and the type of cancer that he had. Aged 14 years old, Charlie was employed cutting asbestos sheets for use in fire doors for Brook Thomas Building Supplies. No protective clothing was provided for the workforce, and they often ate their lunches in the area where the asbestos was being stored. In the 1960s, when the work was being carried out, there was little public knowledge of the risk of exposure to asbestos.

The Dublin Coroner investigating the death-Dr Brian Farrell-was told at the inquest that when Charlie was initially diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he could possibly only have eleven months to live. In spite of this, he survived four more years. Dr Farrell was also told that both of Charlie’s siblings had previously died to asbestos related cancers, but had been exposed to the material in different incidents.

An autopsy of Charlie’s body was conducted, revealing “numerous asbestos bodies were identified in the lungs”. This confirmed the diagnoses of disseminated mesothelioma that had been given to Charlie. Dr Farrell returned the verdict that Charlie had died due to the asbestos related cancer, further commenting that it was an unfortunate coincidence that all three of the siblings had died from such a rare disease.

A new scheme has been introduced by the DSP that allows for the recovery of welfare benefits from successful personal injury claims.

Since the first of this month, the “Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme” has been enforced. This scheme enables the Department of Social Protection (DSP) to recover welfare benefits paid to recipients of personal injury compensation.

The scheme was a result of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013, aimed at replacing the previous practice of deducting welfare benefits from compensation for loss of earnings, and operates in a similar way to the Compensation Recovery Unit in the UK.

With the new legislation, the compensator in question-which is usually the negligent party’s insurance provider-is required to request a statement from the Department of Social Protection outlining the value of certain welfare benefits that the plaintiff has received in the previous five years which relate directly to the accident or injury for which their claim for compensation was made.

Copies of this statement will also be sent to the other relevant parties-the plaintiff and the Injuries Board (in cases where they have been responsible for completing an accepted assessment). This will detail the deductions that are to be made from compensation settlements for the recovery of welfare benefits.

The benefits which apply under the new scheme are confined to:

• Injury Benefit

• Illness Benefit

• Partial Capacity Benefit

• Incapacity Supplement

• Disability Allowance

• Invalidity Pension

Before this legislation, the welfare benefits have usually been deducted from plaintiff’s loss of earnings settlement, and therefore there will be no difference in how much personal injury compensation they receive. It is likely to take several weeks longer for a compensation settlement to be received as a result of the new process.

It is important to note that plaintiffs must check their copy of the benefits statement to ensure that it is entirely accurate, and reflects only the welfare benefits that they have received in respect of their injury. If the statement is incorrect, an appeals process exists.

For professional legal advice about how to check the recovery of welfare benefits – and what to do if you consider the DSP´s figures to be incorrect – it is recommended that you consult with a personal injury solicitor.

The Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) recently published a paper which demonstrates a clear link between the incidence of heart disease and strokes in workers and the asbestos they were exposed to in their workplace.

A study conducted by the HSL-a branch of the UK’s Health and Safety Executive-that was recently published in the British Medical Journal has concluded that employees exposed to asbestos are at a greater risk of heart disease and strokes than the general population.

15,557 deaths were analysed from 98,912 workers who had taken part in regular voluntary health monitoring and participated in the Asbestos Workers Survey. They compared the numbers of deaths from strokes and heart attacks among these workers with the number that would be expected to occur in members of the general population. They also found that women were more likely to be affected than men by the material.

This large difference between men and women was found to be significant. Male asbestos workers-who were usually engaged in removal of asbestos-were 39 percent more likely to die of heart disease and 63 percent more likely to die of a stroke. Women-mostly employed in the manufacturing industry-were 89 percent more likely to die of heart disease than the general population, and 100 percent more likely to die of a stroke after being exposed to asbestos.

Evidence was also presented that the longer the duration of exposure to the dangerous material, the greater the likelihood the person had of dying from heart disease or a stroke. The report concluded that cerebrovascular and ischaemis heart disease mortality rates were significantly higher when there had been exposure to asbestos in the workplace, causing concern.

Provided it can be proven that the person who was suffering from heart disease or who had experienced a stroke was exposed to asbestos at work-or due to linking environmental factors-it is possible to claim compensation for heart disease due to asbestos exposure.

The research that has been published has provided many victims of asbestos-related diseases with the information needed to claim compensation for their injuries. For cases where the person exposed to asbestos has died, families are permitted to claim compensation for heart diseases from asbestos exposure on the victim´s behalf; although the successful conclusion of the claim may depend on being able to locate witnesses who can confirm the presence of asbestos in the workplace.

Two employees of the Home Office have been awarded compensation for RSI injuries to their shoulders and arms due to repetitive movements while performing their jobs, with reports of more employees coming forward to make similar claims.

Two employees of the Home Office have each been awarded up to £20,000 in compensation for RSI shoulder injuries that they developed over a period of time. As a part of their job, they had to lean out of a kiosk window to check the passports of visitors to the UK at the ferry port of Calais. This repeated action caused the RSI injuries to their arms.

Pamela Smith (58) of Dover, Kent, was one of the employees who mad the claim. After experiencing discomfort to her arm, she sought medical attention. She was diagnosed with a torn boxes and repetitive strain shoulder injury, for which she had to undergo surgery. While she was recovering, she was unable to return to work.

When she was eventually able to take her job up again, Pamela was informed that her job was being ended. Pamela sought legal counsel from her union and after speaking with her representative, she made a compensation claim for RSI shoulder injuries. Pamela’s claim was successful. Due to her continued pain in her arm, Pamela fears that she may now be unable to find a replacement job as she finds it difficult to work.

Due to severe staffing cuts, the number of immigration officers employed at Calais and other similar French ports has reduced. The remaining employees must now work longer shifts while performing these repetitive tasks. As a result, more people are suffering from repetitive strain injuries to their shoulder and arms, much like Pamela did.

The General Secretary of the Immigration Services Union (ISU) who represented Pamela and the unnamed officer-Lucy Moreton-stated: “The plight of officers working long hours in appalling conditions has been brought to management attention over and over again. The ISU hopes managers will now address these issues rather than sweep them under the carpet.”

It is understood that twelve more immigration officers based in French ports are also in the process of making claims for compensation for RSI shoulder injuries.

A court has fined Maxibrite Ltd for health and safety violations regarding a factory fire in which two of its employees suffered burn injuries-one so severe, he needed a skin graft.

In December 2012, a fire broke out in a tower on a manufacturing plant in Llantrisant owned by Maxibrite-a coal briquette manufacturer. Several attempts were made to control the fire in the tower-which held a rotary drier-all of which failed. After these failed attempts, a Maxibrite work manager-Simon Gillbody-and another employee-Carl Lewis-went to the tower to attempt to open an inspection hatch at the bottom to release any obstruction.

Carl opened the inspection hatch, causing burning cinders and hot coals to fall down on him. These caused burns to the necks, faces and chests of the two employees. The emergency services were notified, and they were transported to hospital. Carl required a skin graft operation due to the severity of his burns. Simon was treated to by the emergency services, as his burns were not as serious as Carl’s.

The Health and Safety Executive launched an investigation into the accident which caused the two men to be injured. It was discovered that Maxibrite had neither carried out a risk assessment for the possibilityof the rotary dried starting a fire, nor instructed the employees on the procedures to follow in the event of a fire. It was further revealed that no training had been provided for employees who may be using fire-fighting equipment if a fire were to break out.

The HSE prosecuted the company for breaches in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. At Pontypridd Magistrate’s Court, the company pleaded guilty to both of the charges against them. The Magistrates fined the company a total of £20,000 for their negligence which caused the injuries, and ordered the company to pay £5,115 in costs.

Speaking after the Magistrates had announced the fine, HSE inspector Steve Lewis commented that Simon and Carl–the two employees burned in the accident–could have suffered far worse injuries because of Maxibrite´s negligence. He urged all employers to inform staff of the proper procedures to follow should a fire break out at work.

A chef who was participating in a team building exercise during which he broke his wrist has settled his claim for compensation against his employer, Carton House.

In October 2006, Cathal Kavanagh (54) of Ongar, Dublin, was employed by the Carton House Spa and Golf Hotel in Maynooth, County Kildare, as the executive head chef. Cathal was attending a team-building exercise event with his colleagues in the Riverbanks Art Centre in Newbrifge when he was involved in an accident that resulted in him breaking his wrist.

Cathal and his colleagues from the hotel participated in a series of events and games during the day. One of these events was a relay race, in which Cathal was required to hop forwards and then run backwards. During the race. Cathal slipped on the surface and fell, breaking his wrist due to the impact of the fall. Cathal was transported to hospital, where his injury was treated.

Cathal sought legal counsel, and made a compensation claim for an injury on a team building exercise against the Carton House Spa and Golf Hotel-a four star facility-and the organisers of the day-JikiJela Ltd of County Sligo. He made a further claim against the owners of the Riverbank Arts Centre-Kildare County Council.

In his action, Cathal claimed that all three parties had been negligent in ensuring his safety as they had not ensured that the activities were safe for this who participated in them, and they hadn’t ensured that there was no danger present in the location of the event. All three of the defendants denied liability, and Cathal sought Authorisation from the Injuries Board for his claim to go to court. The Injuries Board granted this application.

The case was scheduled to be heard at the Circuit Civil Court by Mrs Justice Mary Irvine. However, following the first lunch break of the case, the judge was informed that Cathal’s compensation claim for an injury on a team-building exercise had been settled and that case could be struck.